Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Rumors And Repercussions.

Stop me if you’ve heard me say this before: the more I try
to give Dayton Moore and the Royals the benefit of the doubt, the more they try
to make me look like an idiot for doing so.

There are valid reasons to be skeptical about the additions
of Ervin Santana and Jeremy Guthrie – while both have a track record of
success, they both have red flags as well. They’re both coming off poor
seasons, albeit with excuses. But I decided not to be critical of either
addition, in large part because neither pitcher cost the Royals to dip into their farm system
(Brandon Sisk notwithstanding). If adding Santana and Guthrie kept Moore from
being tempted to trade a part of his core lineup to improve his rotation, that
was a significant fringe benefit.

There’s a season’s worth of epic fail just in the first
paragraph. “Is outfield prospect Wil
Myers worth a veteran pitcher who would instantly go to the front of the
Royals’ rotation, such as Tampa Bay’s James Shields or Boston’s Jon Lester? If
so, how will the club clear sufficient payroll space to stay within its soft
$70 million ceiling?”

The answers to those two questions are “HELL NO!” and “wait,
soft WHAT?!”

Later in the column, Bob Dutton writes, “is either worth considering from the Royals’ perspective. In effect,
are two years of Shields or Lester worth six of Myers?”

No. No. No.

(I want to make something clear: I’m not shooting the
messenger here, just the message. Dutton does the job of beat writer so well
that it can be hard to tell where the Royals’ opinions stop and where his
starts.)

First off, you’re not trading six years of Wil Myers – if
you’re smart, you’re trading about 6.9 years. Having made it this far without
promoting him to the majors, you have every incentive to start him in Omaha,
bring him up in late April, and then delay his free agency until after the 2019
season. Believe me, if he gets traded to Tampa Bay, that’s exactly how they’ll
play it out. (Actually, if he gets traded to Tampa Bay, the odds are at least
50/50 that they’ll take my advice and sign him to an Evan Longoria deal. After
all, they’re the ones who signed Evan Longoria to an Evan Longoria deal.)

So you trade 6.9 years of Wil Myers for two years of Jon
Lester. Two expensive years of Jon
Lester. Lester makes $11.625 million next year, with a club option for 2014 at
$13 million. In 2014, that would make Lester the most expensive player in
Royals history.

That’s fine if you’re getting a quality starter, and for
most of his career, he’s been exactly that. Lester became a full-time starter
for the Red Sox in 2008, threw a no-hitter against the Royals early in the
season, and finished with a 3.21 ERA in 210 innings. His ERAs from 2008 through
2011 read 3.21, 3.41, 3.25, and 3.47, making at least 31 starts each year,
pitching in the AL East. He wasn’t an ace, but he was the next-best thing, a
top-of-the-line #2 starter. And if the Royals could acquire last year’s Lester,
with three years of club control, I wouldn’t be losing my mind about the
possibility of trading Myers for him.

But in 2012 he not only used up a year of club control, he
had his worst season in the majors, with his ERA jumping to 4.82, and his
strikeout rate dropping to 18.9%, from 22.8% the year before and 26.4% from
2009-2010. He might well rebound – the Red Sox were Dysfunction Central in
2012, and Lester was at the center of that. He still took the ball every fifth
day. But his velocity has slowly crept downwards, from 93.5 mph in 2009 and
2010 to 92.0 in 2012.

I think Lester is a good candidate to bounce back, and in
fact think he would be a fine buy-low candidate. But this isn’t buying low.
This is paying steak prices for mystery meat, and hoping it turns out to be
filet mignon.

It’s not even clear that trading Myers for Lester would help
the Royals in 2013. If Myers goes,
then you can expect Jeff Francoeur to get 600 plate appearances come hell or
high OBP. The upgrade from Francoeur to even a league-average performance from Myers would be at least four wins. If Lester only bounces back halfway to his
previous form, giving the Royals 200 innings but an ERA around 4, that’s only
worth about four wins. That’s a wash, while adding $11 million to the payroll.

Oh, and if by some chance Lester has the best season of his
career, puts up an ERA in the mid-2s and wins 18 games and finishes first or
second in the Cy Young vote? Per a clause in his contract, his 2014 option would
be voided, and he’d be a free agent after just one season.

(I feel compelled to suggest a deeply Machiavellian
counter-response. If Lester is tearing up the league at mid-season, and the
Royals – or Red Sox, if he’s not traded – are not in contention, there’s a
simple way to ensure that he won’t be able to opt out of his 2014 contract:
trade him to an NL team. His split-league performance will keep him from doing
well in either Cy Young vote – look at C.C. Sabathia’s 2008 performance as an
example – and keep him under contract for another season with his new team,
which will therefore be willing to pay in prospects accordingly.)

Moore wants to add at
least one more impact arm and would prefer to do so by trading prospects from
the club’s farm system rather than deal someone off the major-league roster.

What really puts the folly of trading for Lester into focus
is this: if Moore really wants to add one more impact arm, and has the ability
to add Lester’s contract to the payroll, HE DOESN’T HAVE TO TRADE FOR A
PITCHER. He can simply sign another one as a free agent.

Jon Lester is owed $24.625 million over the next two years.
I’m going on record now as predicting that Shaun Marcum, when he signs in the
next few weeks, will not be paid as much over the next two years. I’m confident
about this because the Brewers declined to make Marcum a qualifying offer. They
could have offered Marcum a 1-year, $13.3 million contract, knowing that if he
turned it down, they would have received a supplemental draft pick in
compensation. That they did not do so strongly suggests that they were
concerned Marcum would accept their offer – and they weren’t willing to commit
that much money, even for one year.

I expect Marcum to sign for something like $20 million for
two years. Maybe he’ll get a three-year deal for less money, for similar to
what Jeremy Guthrie got. But basically, if the Royals can afford to take on Jon
Lester’s contract, they can afford to make the best offer to Marcum.

Gun to my head, I’d rather have Lester over Marcum over the
next two years, simply because Lester has shown more durability. But it’s
awfully close. The difference between Lester and Marcum might be, what, one win
a season? And for that one win, you’d trade one of the five best prospects in all
of baseball? Are you insane?

James Shields is a more valuable commodity than Lester. He’s
thrown 477 innings over the last two years with a 3.15 ERA. (Although keep in
mind that he had a 5.18 ERA in 2010.) His strikeout rate continues to tick up,
this past year reaching 23.6%, and his command has always been excellent. Like
Lester, he’s signed for 2013 with a
2014 option, but there’s no voiding option, and he’s cheaper - $9
million in 2013, $12 million in 2014.

But he pitches for the Rays, in one of the best pitchers’ parks in the game, in
front of one of the defenses in the game, for one of the best managers in the
game. If you take him out of that organization, he doesn’t bring all of those
advantages with him. He would give the Royals a ton of innings and a solid ERA
in the mid-3s. But he’s not an ace, and it would be crazy to trade Wil Myers
for two years of a #2 starter.

My God, has everyone forgotten what happened last winter?
The New York Yankees traded Jesus Montero for Michael Pineda. Pineda, like
Lester and Shields, was an established #2 starter in the majors. He had a 3.74
ERA as a rookie, struck out over a man an inning, and made the All-Star team.
For Montero, they didn’t get two years of Pineda – they got FIVE years of
Pineda.

The similarities between Montero last year and Myers today
are almost frightening. Montero was the #6 prospect in the game by Baseball America; Myers will, I predict,
rank #4 on their list, behind only Jurickson Profar, Dylan Bundy, and Oscar
Taveras. Both Montero and Myers were bat-first prospects who started their
careers at catcher. Myers is more athletic, and is expected to have more
defensive value in the long run as an outfielder; Montero still catches
occasionally, but is expected to give that up eventually and wind up as a
1B/DH.

Myers’ career line in the minors is .303/.395/.522.
Montero’s career line in the minors is .308/.366/.501.

As a 21-year-old in Triple-A, Montero hit .288/.348/.467 –
but hit .328/.406/.590 in an 18-game callup in September. As a 21-year-old in
Triple-A, Myers hit .304/.378/.554 (and hit .343/.414/.731 in Double-A for a
month first). You can make a case for either player, but basically, Wil Myers
today has almost exactly the same value as Jesus Montero had a year ago.

For Jesus Montero, the Yankees got five years of an
established major-league starter, who was still two years away from being
arbitration-eligible. And they also got a
promising second prospect, Jose Campos, who allowed less than a baserunner
an inning as an 18-year-old pitching in the Northwest League. (The Yankees
tossed Hector Noesi into the deal; Noesi had a 5.82 ERA for the Mariners this
year, and is a non-entity at this point.)

The people arguing that the Royals should trade Wil Myers
for a starting pitcher make the case that even the best prospects aren’t a sure
thing, and that Myers might wind up being a big disappointment in 2013. They’re
right. He could end up doing what Jesus Montero did this year – Montero hit
.260/.298/.386 while playing every day for the Mariners.

And guess what? THEY’D STILL MAKE THE TRADE AGAIN. They
traded a 22-year-old starter with five years of service time, and a quality
second arm, for Montero, watched as Montero stunk up the joint, and at least
right now, they’ve clearly won the trade.
Because Pineda, of course, tore up his rotator cuff in spring training, missed
the entire season, and no one knows what his stuff will be like when he
returns.

And now you’re telling me the Royals are even thinking of trading Wil Myers for two
expensive seasons from a #2 starting pitcher? Are you insane?

Or just look at what the Royals got for Zack Greinke. They
got Alcides Escobar, the #12 prospect in baseball a year before, but whose
stock had dropped considerably after hitting .235 as a rookie. They got Jake
Odorizzi, who was ranked the #69 prospect in baseball after the trade. They got
Lorenzo Cain and Jeremy Jeffress, neither of whom were Top 100 prospects. I’ll
take liberties here and call Cain and Escobar “prospects” even though they had
exhausted their rookie status, and say that the Royals traded Greinke into a
Top 50 prospect, a 51-100 prospect, a 101-150 prospect, and a 151-200 prospect.

Any retrospective analysis of prospect lists will lead you
to the conclusion that you’d rather have a single Top 10 prospect –
particularly a hitting prospect –
than the four guys above. Wil Myers alone is worth more than the four guys that
they got for Zack Greinke.

And by the way, Jon
Lester and James Shields are not Zack Greinke. Greinke was a year removed
from the most dominant season by any starting pitcher since Pedro Martinez in
2000. In his down year in 2010, he had just a 4.17 ERA – better than Lester
this season – and 181 Ks against just 55 walks, while pitching the second half
of the season like he’d rather be digging ditches than on the mound at Kauffman
Stadium. He was still worth 3.2 Wins Above Replacement. By comparison, in 2012,
Shields was only worth 2.2 WAR, and Lester was at 0.4.

If anything, the Brewers were willing to overpay for
Greinke, because the way their roster was set up – with Prince Fielder set to
be a free agent in two years – they felt that their best chance to win was
immediately. That’s one of the reasons I was so optimistic about the trade
initially – because the Brewers seemed to have an incentive to overpay in
future talent in order to acquire talent in the here and now.

So to recap: two years ago, the Brewers – who were pushing
to win right away – overpaid to acquire Zack Greinke. They still gave up less
talent to acquire a better pitcher than the Royals would give up to acquire Jon
Lester or James Shields.

Are the Royals insane?

Maybe there’s nothing to this. As a friend pointed out,
virtually every significant move the Royals have made under Dayton Moore was not leaked beforehand. If you’re an
optimist, you might even convince yourself that the fact we’re talking about
Lester and Shields means the Royals won’t
trade for either player. But it’s clear they want to add another starter, and
it’s clear that they’re willing to do so by any means necessary.

And it worries me that for the first time, we have a case of
moral hazard on our hands. Moral hazard refers to what happens when an
individual takes risks knowing that they won’t suffer the downside if their
gamble goes sour. (c.f. Every bank in America during the housing bubble.) In
this case, Dayton Moore knows that if the Royals don’t start winning in 2013,
he’s probably out of a job. So the risk that Wil Myers becomes a superstar in
2015 is, to him, less concerning than the risk that the Royals will win 79
games in 2013 instead of 83.

This isn’t something unique to Moore – every GM or manager
approaching the end of their contract will have their interests focused on the
short term more than the organization as a whole should. And until now, Moore
has done a good job – maybe too good a job – of focusing on the long term, by
concentrating on high school talent in the draft, spending millions on
16-year-olds in Latin America, etc.

But if he trades Wil Myers for a two-year pitcher, he’s
sacrificing the organization’s ability to contend from 2015 through 2019 for a
short-term gain. That would be fine if the Royals are where the Brewers were
two years ago – but they’re not. This is a team that should continue to improve
for the next 3-4 years, at least until Alex Gordon and Billy Butler are
eligible for free agency, if not until Eric Hosmer and Mike Moustakas do the
same.

I have advocated that the Royals make a play for 2013,
because I think they have a chance to contend next year if they play their
cards right. But not at the expensive of sacrificing their long-term future.
Trading Jorge Bonifacio or Jason Adam is one thing. Trading Wil Myers is quite
another. If you can’t get an ace (David Price), or at least a cost-controlled pitcher with years of service time
(Jeremy Hellickson, although even he’s not enough), then you don’t do it. It’s
as simple as that.

And after all that, it’s time to talk about the really depressing part of Dutton’s
column, the part about the “soft $70 million ceiling”. There have been signs
that the Royals’ payroll has been capped at that point for over a year, but
I’ve tried my best to ignore it, because I’ve stubbornly believed that
ownership could not possibly be so dumb as to claim that they can’t afford to
spend more than $70 million in payroll. They couldn’t possibly be so dumb as to
think that the fans would buy it.

Last month I finally came down on the Royals for crying
poverty, and now, finally, the artillery is coming out everywhere. To recap:

- The Royals had a payroll in excess of $70 million in 2009,
and again in 2010.

- Revenue is going up throughout the sport at a breakneck
pace.

- National TV revenue goes up by about $26 million starting
in 2014.

- The Royals are limited from spending as much on amateur
talent acquisition as they used to by the new CBA.

Given those four facts, in what universe are the Royals
limited to a $70 million payroll?

Here’s a real quick accounting of revenue:

- Starting in 2014, every team in MLB will earn a total of
$50 million from the national TV contract.

- The Royals, even saddled with a long-term local TV deal
that was signed before the money explosion, still earn $20 million annually
from their deal.

That’s $70 million right there, which would cover payroll.
True, the Royals have non-payroll expenses, employees, draft picks, minor
leagues, etc. But then consider:

- If we conservatively assume attendance of 1.6 million, and
conservatively assume an average of $30 spent per attendee on tickets,
concessions, parking, etc – that’s $48 million.

And THEN we have to remember that the Royals are one of the
prime beneficiaries of MLB’s revenue sharing, which brings in tens of millions
of dollars to the organization. That enormous $250 million a year TV contract
the Dodgers are signing? 34% of that goes to a central fund. If that’s
distributed evenly to all 30 teams, that means the Royals will earn $3 million just from the Dodgers’ TV deal. And I’m
pretty sure it’s not distributed
evenly – the lower-revenue teams get more of the central fund money.

Put it together, and Forbes estimates that the Royals had
$161 million in revenue in 2011. Throw in the new TV contract and the rise in
ticket prices, and we’re talking about over $200 million in revenue in 2014.

And they have a $70 million ceiling. But hey, it’s “soft”,
so it’s all good.

It’s time to take the gloves off. Sam Mellinger did a fine job in today’s paper, but honestly, he could have been even harder on the Glass
family, and not just because the Star prohibits the use of profanity. Saying
the Royals could “extend the payroll to at least $75 million and as much as $80
million” is entirely too kind – based on the publicly available numbers, the
Royals can go to $85 million easy. And it’s not because “Glass and the Royals
have saved more than enough he last few years” – it’s because even at $85 million, the Glass family
should do no worse than break even, and probably still turn a tidy profit.

The game is swimming in cash, and a rising tide lifts all
boats, even the little dinghy that the Royals live on. If David Glass thinks he
can’t afford to spend more than $70 million in payroll, then he’s incredibly
cheap. If he thinks that the fans will believe that he can’t afford to spend
more than $70 million in payroll, then he’s incredibly cynical.

I’d like to believe he’s neither, because I’m a charitable
sort. But in the coming days, we’re going to find out if he actually cares
about winning, or if he’s just Jeffrey Loria without the tacky taste in home
run sculptures.

If the Royals extend the payroll to even $80 million, they
still have plenty of space to work with. I’ve finally done a complete analysis
of their payroll obligations, and right now their 2013 payroll looks to be around
$67 million. (There’s some disagreement over exactly how Jeff Francoeur’s
contract breaks down, and I can only guess at what Aaron Crow will make, given
that he’s not arbitration-eligible but signed a major-league contract out of
the draft.)

But comments like these: “The
truth of the matter,” Moore said, “is if we add another pitcher…there wouldn’t
be room to add that individual unless we got rid of somebody else.” – make
it sound like $80 million is out of the question. Which is utterly, completely
indefensible.

Even at $70 million, the Royals can add another player,
since “somebody else” can easily be Luke Hochevar and his $4.4 million
obligation. But the margin for error is tiny, and it leads to desperate ideas
like possibly cutting Felipe Paulino and his
$2.7 million contract.

Which circles us back to where we started: if you’re really limited to a $70 million payroll,
then there is NOTHING more valuable to you than a star prospect who’s ready to
step onto your roster, and be paid the major league minimum for the next three
years. If, instead, you prefer to commit almost $25 million over the next two
years to a starting pitcher coming off a bad season, then you understand
nothing about economics, or even basic math.

This could be a tempest in a teapot. But this could also be
the prelude to a franchise-altering mistake. The Royals have the resources to
add one more starting pitcher using the same method they added their last
starting pitcher, through free agency. If, through stinginess or
short-sightedness, they trade their best prospect instead, it’s going to be
open season on the organization, and I have my shotgun at the ready.

48 comments:

I am PISSED that Dayton Moore is publicly stating whenever possible that their payroll ceiling is $70mil for ’12. So pissed that if they don’t do what’s right (and I am going to explain my definition of that below) I will not follow them EVER AGAIN as long as Glass is the owner. I tweeted my thoughts in a succession of tweets but I am going to lay it out for you guys too.

I have been looking at their payroll history and they underspent last yr by $31.5 mil compared to their 4yr avg from '07-'10. Avg during that time period was $67.25mil.

You can assume that the $67.5mil is basically the ceiling that Dayton Moore is talking about. So, since they underspent by that much in ’11 they theoretically have that money to spend this season. So, to find out what they can really “afford” in ’12 you need to take their average, or “ceiling”, of $67.5mil and add $31.5mil to that. Making their real payroll affordability for ’12 of just under $100mil.

Right now they have $61.4mil committed for ’12 to their 25 man roster. That is with Hochevar at $3.5mil committed. They shouldn’t offer him arbitration and let him walk, saving that $3.5mil and bringing their new committed amount to $57.9mil. Meaning they still have $42.1mil to spend in ’12 to get back to their spending average that they have had since Dayton Moore took over.

Now, before they can just go nuts and spend that $42.1mil. They need to structure their contracts for ’13 & beyond so that they don’t go over their average payroll figures. The interesting thing is that starting in ’14 they will receive an extra $13mil/yr from the MLB general fund due to the new TV contracts that MLB signed, which guarantee each team the aforementioned $13mil/yr. That is an extra $13mil/yr. So their new average should go up by that amount from $67.5mil to $80mil/yr.

Now, knowing that, here are the moves they need to make. After each move I will show you what the Royals payroll will be in 2012 and 2013 & beyond after each deal. Keep in mind that their 2013 payroll should be at about $100mil, their 2014-beyond payroll should be about $80mil:

Anibal Sanchez is said to be looking for 6yrs/$90mil. Whether he gets that or not is up for debate but let’s just use those numbers for my scenario. If they sign him to those numbers they need to front load the deal so that he is paid $20mil/yr for the first two years of the contract then give him $12.5mil the last 4 yrs of the contract. That $12.5 mil is exactly what Santana’s contract pays this season and will come off the books in ’13. Royals payroll for 2013 after signing this deal = $77.9 milRoyals payroll for 2014 & beyond after signing this deal = $65.9 mil

Trade Wil Myer’s & Prospects to The Rays for David Price. If you put together a deal similar to the Greinke deal for Price The Rays will take it. The Royals have those pieces. Wil Myer’s with the bat. A shortstop prospect ? The Royals have 5 legit SS prospects. They have a couple of low minors arms that are comparable to what Odorizzi at the time of the Greinke deal and they have a TON of major league ready relievers in their system, similar to what everyone thought Jeffress was when the trade went down. You may even be able to save some money by also including Chen in the deal. The best part about getting Price other than the fact that he is a LEGIT ACE is that the Royals would control him through 2015!! His salary for next season will be about $9mil after his first year of arbitration. After that it will go up in ’14 to probably about $14mil &’15 to about $16mil through arbitration.Royals payroll for 2013 after making this trade = $81.9 milRoyals payroll for 2014 after making this trade = $74.9 milRoyals payroll for 2015 after making this trade = $78.9 mil

(Optional but preferred move) Now that they have traded Myers they need to sign a veteran RFer like Ryan Ludwick or Cody Ross and eat the last year of Frenchy’s deal. They have the money. Maybe platoon Frenchy and this signing in RF. They will have to do this for the next couple of years, however as there is not another corner OFer ready for the Majors in their system after trading Myers.Royals payroll for 2013 after making this move = $86 milRoyals payroll for 2014 after making this move = $80 milRoyals payroll for 2015 after making this move = $82 mil

I did not address possible arbitration raises for their core young players like Moose, Hosmer and their ‘pen so their 2014 & 2015 payroll may balloon a bit but probably still won’t go over $90 mil in those years.

And if $70m really is your own self-imposed salary cap, then $12m on Santana and $8.3m per year on Guthrie really is idiocy. If $70m turns out to be the cap, then the Royals/GMDM really are both cheap and stupid.

And if $70m really is your own self-imposed salary cap, then $12m on Santana and $8.3m per year on Guthrie really is idiocy. If $70m turns out to be the cap, then the Royals/GMDM really are both cheap and stupid.

I think all of the hoopla over the 70 mil cap is an over reaction to a general statement that shouldn't be taken at face value. Remember when Moore made the comments about payroll after the Volstad claiming? Everyone got all up in arms after that and he has since turned around and added Santana and Guthrie. We can't jump the gun until the season starts and we see what the final payroll is. I, for one, don't think Moore is stupid enough to trade Myers for a short term rental. I think he is trying to drum up more interest. And I expect the Braves to come strong on Myers. How about a Minor, Teheran, Hanson package?

I am so glad so many Royals bloggers are calling attention to this. I'm curious how much money the Royals profited from the All-Star game this year. And why in the world wouldn't the $12 million Gil Meche gave them this year have been banked. That money should be available for the 2013 payroll. Between the AS game profit, Meche charity, dollars that were previously used on the draft, Revenue sharing, the new TV contracts, PLUS the statement Glass previously made about being willing to "break even" if it means contending, I don't see why the payroll shouldn't be $100 million honestly.

I propose that we get our elected officials to force a Green Bay Packers situation, where the team is bought from the Glasses and becomes a public entity. Do I think that's realistic? Of course not, but I think the odd's of that are far greater than the odds of C. Montgomery Glass doing anything other than steal money from committed fans who have no other ability to influence any positive change.

Even when you're angry, Rany, your commentary still feels more cordial and professional than the idiocy of the Royals management demands. I'm not sure whether the inability to rip this team apart in writing reflects your good-natured personality or whether it's a consequence of the fact that we as fans just really don't have leverage to drive home the point.

We might name-call and air our grievences on blogs and talk radio, but we're not going to protest at the stadium, we can't get Moore fired, and we sure as hell can't kick Glass to the curb. If Loria's safe in Miami, the will of the fans is certainly toothless in Kansas City.

Speaking of the "moral hazard", I was thinking that's true of Jeremy Guthrie's contract's third year. Dayton Moore's contract only runs through 2014. If Guthrie isn't part of what gets the Royals to contention by 2014, then he probably feels pretty safe that he won't have to deal with the matter of Guthrie's contract in payroll calculations for 2015.

He says they are not trying to make money on the team. If that is really the truth, then he needs to invest the 250MM plus in equity that has been gained.

It is obviously not the truth.

If he wants to make money, more power to him. But don't out and out lie about the basic finances of the team.

ONe question I would like to see asked of Glass also, is why didn't he fight harder to not allow the limit placed on draft spending. This limit really seems to harm smaller markets and I have not seen one comment from him on this subject. Why wouldn't he have fought to have this removed from the CBA?

If we thought Rany was up-in-arms over recent Glass/Moore comments, just wait until he takes apart Glass' comments in the Star today; "From the time we've owned the team until now,accumulatively we've done no better than break even. We've actually subsidizedit slightly during that period of time." He goes on to talk about spending $20 - $30 mill in amateur bonuses (oops, less than half that in '12 and the new rules force the same going forward) and that "if you add what we're spending on amateur bonuses to our salaries, we're spending a lot of money."

Talk about word-smithing! I'm guessing in some weird baseball ownership sort of accounting system (which is different from the system most of us live in and the one that Forbes uses!), his claim of actually subsidizing the team probably has a shred of truth (but just a shred). He never spent anywhere near $30 mill in amateur bonuses in a single year, but since he did spend over $20 mill, than I guess his statement can be conceived as factual. And yes, he is spending a lot of money, but he's also taking in a whole lot more (see Rany column) and spending far less than almost any other organization (I use the term "organize" loosely when referring to the Royals).

The main issue with "average-Joe" baseball fan is that they read Glass' comments and probably take them at face value, but don't read internet articles/blogs that cry "foul". I really hope Mellinger or some other savvy scribe takes apart Glass' comments in the Star where readers might get some balances views of reality.

twm: The only problem with protesting by "leaving it empty" is - who would notice? If there's nobody in the stadium now and there weren't people attending before, how will anyone know there's a protest?

My suggestion is to do the opposite. I'd like to fill the stadium up, and then have everyone walk out after the first pitch. Nobody buys any souvenirs or food. Just a big party in the parking lot during the game. It would have to be embarassing to the franchise to watch a stadium full of people disappear and have to play before an empty house.

Minor quibble, but under terms of the new CBA and the sale of the Dodgers, only up to 84MM of their new TV deal is subject to revenue sharing at 34%. If they get 250MM a year in TV money, they only have to contribute 28.5MM into the revenue sharing pool and get to keep the rest, which is why they are spending like drunken sailors and widening the gap in MLB spending.

What caught my eye in Glass's comment was when he claimed that he is willing to spend "whatever money the franchise generates". Intentionally ambiguous phrasing always gets my dander up, and this phrasing seems designed to obfuscate.

From MLB Trade Rumors: "The Royals have talked to the Mets about R.A. Dickey as they continue to search for a top-of-the-rotation starter"-- this is what I've been hoping for. The Mets seem to undervalue Dickey because of his age. As a knuckleballer, he's just hitting his stride and is just what the Royals need, in my opinion. Mets want catcher & outfielder, though.

Is it possible that this just a lot of noise to create favorable trading situations?

And the thing that angers me most about all this money talk? All the projections are based on what the team is doing right now. Their revenue/payroll is basically at its lowest possible point (for payroll, I mean their fictional break even point. Sur, they COULD lower it to $30-some million and pocket the rest). Is there any doubt that a playoff contending Royals team generates a revenue boost? I mean like $20, $30 million. I remember in 2003 when they got off to the hot start. My dad was in town and we decided to attend a Tuesday night game against the Tigers. I think they were just back from an undefeated road trip and a Monday off day. We left for the game at about 6:45. "Don't worry," I told my dad. "Nobody goes to games on a Tuesday."

We didn't get to our seats until the fourth inning.

Ken Harvey went to a knee for the game winning homer in extra innings. I think it was shortly thereafter when Denny said, "What is going on!" after a Rey Sanchez walk-off homer.

Anyways, it took two weeks to bring the fans back. I know the damage is deeper now, but contending at the all-star break would still do the trick, in my opinion.

How can Glass say he has broken even, when his initial investment of $90M has more than quadrupled? "Overspend" on a pitcher now, win the division and watch the value of your franchise go up even more. Painting himself as a martyr, as he claims to have dipped into his reserves, is so weak.

If these Dempter 2y/$26M and Feldman 1y/$4M rumors are true, how realistic is it that Zack Greinke gives KC a slight discount, and instead of the 6y/$150M demands, he signs to play here for something like 5y/$115-120M? Bleacher Report has the odds at 100:1 of him signing in KC. If all of these $ figures are true (on how much the Royals can spend, and how much they've been making over the years), it would seem we could afford him. Right?

Angels just replaced Santana with Hanson and all it cost them was a reliever. With DM's history of trading with Atlanta I have to wonder why we didn't make this move. Seems like we could easily have matched Anaheim's offer and probably done better with one of our power arms in the bullpen. Sigh.

This is why I did not renew my companies season tickets for last season and replaced them with Sporting KC tickets. The value for your dollar is so much more with Sporting than the Royals it is absurd. Glass is taking us to the cleaners and laughing all the way to the bank...

Rany, don't fool yourself. You've never given Dayton Moore the benefit of the doubt. At least, not in recent years. You say you are, but in your mind, regardless of the move they make, you are going to find the negative, find the downside of it, and believe it. Dayton Moore's problem is what he ISN'T doing, not what he's done.

Also, if the owner gives you a cap, as a GM, you take it and deal with it. It's how it is.

I've talked about this proposed deal on Red Sox sites already. It makes no sense to me, as a Red Sox fan. If Dayton Moore can afford to pay Jon Lester, then he should just sign one of the FA pitchers and be done with it. I'm sure the Red Sox would love to trade Lester for Wil Myers, put Myers into the lineup for 2013, then use Lester's salary to go sign a Dan Haren or Edwin Jackson to replace him.

Shields has been #1 starter for last two seasons. http://www.draysbay.com/2012/10/30/3564018/2012-season-review-james-shields

After he tweaked his delivery, he added a few mph on his fastball putting him on nice little run in second half. His fastball, K/9, GB%, xFIP, FIP and everything else is career high comparing to his 2011 where he ended up 3rd in Cy young vote.

In his last two seasons, he averaged 3.24 xFIP and it will play well in Kauffman stadium plus he doesn't need to face hitters' heaven AL East teams in weekly basis.

In the other writing, you've mentioned "Myers has enormous trade value, and is the one guy in the farm system that the Royals could essentially trade straight-up for an established starting pitcher who still has two or three years left on his contract. "

No Kershaw and Verlander type will come straight up with Myers. I can't think of better pitchers than Shields who would come straight up 1 on 1 trade with Myers. If Rays adds extra piece to balance the deal(outfielder Guyer or SP Niemann), I think it can easily be WIN-WIN for both side.

Plus, Rays defense was horrible this year. Check out their fielding stats. Their UZR was about 10th among baseball but other notable stats suggesting their D was below average last season. How can a team with Brooks Conrad and Keppinger manning up 2B-3B while career 2B guy manning shortstop have an "elite" defense? Shields was a heavy groundballer this season and his stat took a huge hit due to weak infield defense this season.

Given his improved peripherals and career high velocity plus strong 2nd half number, if infield defense becomes as good as it was back in 2011 then Shields will mark 2.80-3.20 ERA.

Rany we need your help! If you could use your resources to find quotes from Moore and Glass at the start of Dayton's tenure here when we went to the first "youth movement" and the payroll dropped considerably. The fans were up in arms and they came out with a plan to put the savings into an "escrow account" that they can use when we start winning or need it to resign the young kids when they hit FA. Remember the speech about you can go buy your kids a Gordon or a Butler jersey and expect to be able to wear it for a long time like we did George Brett. Said we shouldn't just spend money on FA just to keep the payroll up when the younger players abilities were not that far behind what we could get and we could put that savings into an "escrow account". Rany what we need from you is to ask what happened to the money in this "escrow account" and remind the fans before Dayton is pressured by Glass into doing something insanely stupid borrowing your example of robbing Peter to pay Paul in trading Meyers. We can win with our young bats and a dependable average pitching staff instill Duffy or someone else steps up. Shouldn't have to wait though because there should be millions in this "escrow account". Besides we wouldn't even have to go after a A type pitcher that would cost a draft pick anyway. Please help us Rany. The fans are desperate. Bring this to light and let there be so much backlash Glass sells the team. Sorry slipped into a dream there for a second, noway Glass sells this cash cow, especially with this new TV contract coming soon. Maybe he can be embarrassed enough to spend like a real MLB owner, oh wait I just remembered one of the outfielders from the past few yrs climbing the wall for a home run stealing catch ..... The ball bounced on the warning track. Ha he's used to being embarrassed. Oh we'll please try!!!!!

Everyone who is upset about the team spending money, you should remember that a smart GM might decide to ramp up his spending in accordance with the team's chances. If GMDM doesn't think the Royals can contend this season, he might save money for next.

Suppose Glass set a limit of $500mil over 5 seasons, and the Royals' plan is to have a $120mil/yr payroll over 2014-2016. Then they would need to cap themselves around $70mil in 2012 and 2013. It could be greed, too, but we don't necessarily have the full story.

They're not going to trade Wil Myers for either of those guys. Nobody from the team ever says in that article that they're going to do it. Nothing in Moore's past suggests even remotely that he'd do it. Frankly, when I read the article my first reaction was there was no news in it. There's no way a deal like that happens.

I don't get the vitriol for Moore. There have been dumb ML signings for sure, and his refusal to acknowledge the value of sabremetrics is frustrating, but when you look at what he's done to build the organization it's pretty overwhelmingly positive.

the development of the minor league system speaks for itself, but aside from that, there's the long term deals for Escobar and Perez, which were both great. Plus the trade of Greinke - that was a terrific haul for a pitcher that everybody knew we had to trade (I don't agree with Rany that the four guys in that deal combined are worse less than Myers. Let's cool down a little there.)

Butler is signed to a team-friendly deal (I think that was a Moore contract but could be wrong), Gordon is locked up, we have the youngest, most promising set of position players in the major leagues. We have a bullpen full of dominant young arms. The only thing we lack is starting pitching, which has as much to do with the crazy rash of Tommy John surgeries that hit the team over the last two years as anything else.

Yes, we're not winning. Yes, last year was tremendously disappointing. But this team is close. And Moore's done it without (by all accounts) the kind of ownership support his competitors enjoy. (See, soft $70 million payroll).

We get too wrapped up in the Guillen deal, the odd Willie Bloomquist fascination, and all the other strange major league moves he's made. I admit, those are frustrating as hell. But on balance, his work has been a resounding success.

Instead of Myers for Shields, what if the Royals offered Hosmer for Matt Moore? That seems to make much more sense - both should have the same number of controllable years in front of them (or did Moore already get signed to an extension?)

I haven't looked at their contracts, but just off the top of my head that sounds like a fairer deal.